iambiguous wrote:What we believe is true about God or No God is what motivates us to behave as we do. Either in our own company or in the presense of others. And here the whole truth is beside the point when those behaviors precipitate actual consequences.

Therefore if humanity can wean itself off the idea of God as real in the future, then there will be more [ZERO] deadly attacks such as the above.

In my view, what humanity must wean itself off of is objectivism. Look at how many deaths there have been as a result of political ideologies like fascism and Communism. And many of these folks were anything but religious. But they all share in common the belief that on this side of the grave there is a Real Me able to be in sync with The Right Thing to Do. It's just that some attribute to themselves the "intellectual courage" needed to accept that there is no beyond the grave for "I".

But my own particularly brutal pessimism is derived from the historical fact that so many others have died as a result of policies pursued by the nihilists. Those who wrap their own moral narrative around "show me the money". Those who own and operate the global economy.

And this can get really surreal in that some of them can argue for one or another God in sync with global capitalism; while many in the libertarian and Objectivist ranks rationalize this plunder in the name of Reason. Or the "virtue of selfishness".

Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence, sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

The optimal approach is to complement Philosophical Objectivity with Philosophical Subjectivity [especially intersubjectivity] up to the highest levels of considerations.Such an approach will enable people like you to get out of that deep sh1thole you have dug for yourself.

Suggest you improve your breathing techniques to be a more natural breather and your world will light up with greater intensity with a wider vista.Spirituality: How Long Can You Hold Your Breath?viewtopic.php?f=5&t=194655

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

In my view, what humanity must wean itself off of is objectivism. Look at how many deaths there have been as a result of political ideologies like fascism and Communism. And many of these folks were anything but religious. But they all share in common the belief that on this side of the grave there is a Real Me able to be in sync with The Right Thing to Do. It's just that some attribute to themselves the "intellectual courage" needed to accept that there is no beyond the grave for "I".

But my own particularly brutal pessimism is derived from the historical fact that so many others have died as a result of policies pursued by the nihilists. Those who wrap their own moral narrative around "show me the money". Those who own and operate the global economy.

And this can get really surreal in that some of them can argue for one or another God in sync with global capitalism; while many in the libertarian and Objectivist ranks rationalize this plunder in the name of Reason. Or the "virtue of selfishness".

Prismatic567 wrote:Your views are too one-track minded.

In what context though?

You tell me: With regard to particular human interactions out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially, what does it mean to have a "one-track mind"?

Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence, sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

Again, this is all hopelessly abstract. We can all agree on certain facts regarding President Trump declaring a national emergency in order to build his wall on the border with Mexico. If the wall is actually built which philosophers would argue that its existence is not an objective fact? In this technical sense.

"Concepts"? "Propositions"? They need to be brought down to earth and implanted in actual circumstantial contexts.

And then the discussion shifts to whether [morally, politically] building the wall was the right thing to do. Here the objectivists [on both ends of the political spectrum] seem to embody this Real Me able to determine the answer to this question as either Yes or No.

Prismatic567 wrote:The optimal approach is to complement Philosophical Objectivity with Philosophical Subjectivity [especially intersubjectivity] up to the highest levels of considerations.Such an approach will enable people like you to get out of that deep sh1thole you have dug for yourself.

[/quote]

What on earth does this mean? You pick the context. You pick the behaviors in conflicts. Then we can explore with considerably more substance what it means to have a "one-track mind".

And you can elaborate on why you are not in a Sh1thole/shithole yourself.

Either holding or not holding our breaths.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Protestantism, and by extension Americanism and its 'American Individuality', did not escape God, or absolute order, but realized what 'god' was: a representation of human order, reflecting 'divine' absolute order. The Protestant realized he could submit his will to this natural order directly, without a mitigating human factor.It personalized the slavish surrender of 'ego' to natural order, so as to evade the shame.

First of course this is a discussion of God and religion that is entirely up in the clouds of abstraction. You might be a Protestant but how on earth do you interpret the meaning of this as either relevant or not relevant to your own life?

Secondly, it is a frame of mind anchored to idealism. It is a "thought up" understanding of Protestantism/Americanism that makes certain "intellectual" assumptions about them.

This as opposed to, say, the analysis of someone like Karl Marx. From the perspective of a Communist, Protestantism is to be understood largely in terms of the historical shift from feudalism and all previous political economies, to mercantilism and capitalism.

God and religion go from being that which is entirely oriented toward the next world, to that in which they become increasingly more embedded in this world.

In other words, Christianity is made to be more compatible with capitalism. The greater the individual prospers the greater God is pleased.

A lot more readily discernable than the intellectual claptrap above.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

...we have to define things better so that we may move forward, language evolves and is the first step in ones own evolution, understanding language and defining it logically/reasonably.

So we may begin with some very basic definitions of what god is and other content of the holy Bible’s/texts around the world.

This is the part that seems particularly crucial to some here: defining things into existence.

Only when we actually succeed in defining God can the "serious" discussions begin.

Now, some things can be defined. But not into existence. They are able to be defined because they are actual things or describe empirical relationships out in a world where their existence is able to be demonstrated.

Sure, there are things relating to God able to be defined. Churches, Bibles, denominations, religious rituals, religious behaviors. But not into existence. They first of all do in fact exist.

So, where we need to begin here [still] is with accumulated evidence of a God, the God, my God's existence. Then we can get closer and closer to defining those things that we are reasonably able to show the world is likely to actually be true "for all of us".

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

The point is there is a need for outside experts who has the expertise [intellectual, rationality and the necessary competence] to establish an objective definition. This is the basis for the 'authority' to establish a reasonable [not absolute] definition of who is a Christian.

First of all, what is the definition of definition:

1a : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbolb : a statement expressing the essential nature of something

And yet before we can establish the definition of a Christian don't we first need to establish the definition of God?

But how on earth can we establish this without first having established the actual existence of God. And then establishing that this God is wholly in sync with that whom Christians claim to worship and adore?

This exposes the clear limitations of so-called "definitional logic".

How does one pin down the most rational manner in which to define a Christian [which few doubt do in fact exist] when being one is predicated on the definition of an entity that has never, in fact, been shown to actually exist.

Unless He has, and I missed it.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

The point is there is a need for outside experts who has the expertise [intellectual, rationality and the necessary competence] to establish an objective definition. This is the basis for the 'authority' to establish a reasonable [not absolute] definition of who is a Christian.

First of all, what is the definition of definition:

1a : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbolb : a statement expressing the essential nature of something

And yet before we can establish the definition of a Christian don't we first need to establish the definition of God?

But how on earth can we establish this without first having established the actual existence of God. And then establishing that this God is wholly in sync with that whom Christians claim to worship and adore?

This exposes the clear limitations of so-called "definitional logic".

How does one pin down the most rational manner in which to define a Christian [which few doubt do in fact exist] when being one is predicated on the definition of an entity that has never, in fact, been shown to actually exist.

Unless He has, and I missed it.

He hasn't been shown to exist for Prismatic, which is key to the post you are responding to.

And his ideas have additional problems such as can be found in sentences like....

Any dispute the above requirements for an objective definition in conformance with God's standards of 'Who is a Christian'?

How would Prismatic know what is in conformance with God's standards?Well, he says via the Bible.But then how does he know the Bible is in conformance with God's standards.Well, he doesn't think there is a God, but to be a Christian you have to base your beliefs on the Bible, since that is an authority on a God that does not exist.But then non-theists, including non-Christians, cannot decide the interpretations of the Bible, nor whether, say, The Gnostic Gospels should be considered the authority. Or some guy in Idaho.If we go by the Bible and the NT, which Prismatic asserts we should, we find a lot of criteria having to do with the internal states and emotions of believers. And we have no way to measure these or know how much or what quality Jesus was expecting in loving thy neighbor as yourself or loving God will all your heart.So even if his criteria are correct, we cannot say in the positive if any person is a Christian, unless we are a psychic and one with a set of criteria from Jesus as to how much someone has to love their neighbors and God and how much lust and anger they are allowed to feel before they are no longer Christian. Jesus, it seems, was pretty tough equating lusting after one's neighbor's wife with breaking the commandment against adultery and equating anger as equivalent to breaking the commandment against killing.

So we would need a way to not only be sure of the other minds and how much they do these things - so some kind of emotional scanner - then also have a direct line to God about what number we are looking for.

And this is if and only if the relevent NT parts of the Bible are accurate despite being written long after Jesus was dead by potentially fallible humans.

Now a Christian could appeal to this or that authority. They might be wrong. But they can without hypocrisy argue that a Christian is X because this authority (perhaps the Bible) is directly from God. A non-Christian has no way of testing this and would have to take this on trust, but the non-Christian cannot accuse the Christian of hypocrisy for drawing what he or she is calling objective conclusions based on authorities he or she thinks are deluded. And also choosing between authorities without having any tools to do this.

And when Protestants and Catholics were at more odds than today, how many of them were Christians and who do we ask if we are not Christians? What year did that issue go away?

And since all authorities have changed their minds on Biblical interpretation over the years, how can we trust any of them? or choose between them?

and since it is a revealed religion, how do we know any individual believer has not had the truth revealed? And since we have no direct access to Jesus how do we know anything at all about Christ?

I suppose the irony is that most arguments against theism include what is thought of by the maker of that argument as epistemological caution. So it is generally not a good idea to then venture into epistemological recklessness.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I suppose the irony is that most arguments against theism include what is thought of by the maker of that argument as epistemological caution. So it is generally not a good idea to then venture into epistemological recklessness.

Just out of curiosity, if you'd like to go there, what are the "for all practical purposes" implications of this point given the reason that I created this thread in the first place?

Which was to explore [originally with zinnat13] this:

So to speak of "what" "exactly" "I" "am", is merely to speculate in the here and the now regarding the manner in which all of the existential variables in my life came to predispose me to think of my self in one particular subjective manner rather than another. And [for me] that doesn't change just because the subject pertains to the relationship between God, religion and the church.

And then from that connecting the dots between those behaviors I choose on this side of the grave as that relates to what I imagine my fate to be on the other side of it.

What constitutes both epistemological caution and epistemological recklessness in discussions of this profoundly existential relationship?

My point would be that most theists espouse one or another God because 1] it provides them with a transcending font from which they can differentiate good and bad behaviors and 2] having established that, it provides the faithful with a path [on this side of the grave] to immortality and salvation [on the other side of it].

And that it is largely these parts the theists are least likely to explore in terms of what either can or cannot be known philosophically.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I suppose the irony is that most arguments against theism include what is thought of by the maker of that argument as epistemological caution. So it is generally not a good idea to then venture into epistemological recklessness.

Just out of curiosity, if you'd like to go there, what are the "for all practical purposes" implications of this point given the reason that I created this thread in the first place?

I would never assert that anything I say affects all the practical purposes implications. What you quoted above was an addition to the post before it. Sometimes I like to separate out something. But it was still part of a response to your response to Prismatic. I think Prismatic, in his fight against religions speculates wildly while, at least sometimes, arguing against the epistemologies of religious people. That is not a good strategy, I think. Better to remain fast in skepticism.

Which was to explore [originally with zinnat13] this:

So to speak of "what" "exactly" "I" "am", is merely to speculate in the here and the now regarding the manner in which all of the existential variables in my life came to predispose me to think of my self in one particular subjective manner rather than another. And [for me] that doesn't change just because the subject pertains to the relationship between God, religion and the church.

And then from that connecting the dots between those behaviors I choose on this side of the grave as that relates to what I imagine my fate to be on the other side of it.

What constitutes both epistemological caution and epistemological recklessness in discussions of this profoundly existential relationship?

The title of the thread is 'on discussing god and religion'. If we look at this topic in the OP my point could be seen as a guideline for the discussion. If you feel that Zinnat or anyone else is making assumptions or speculating wildly or confusing subjective experiences with objective knowledge or whatever, it would be good

in discussions of god and religion

to be parsimonious about making assumptions (including those about him) or speculating wildly or confusing subjective experience with objective knowledge.

My point would be that most theists espouse one or another God because 1] it provides them with a transcending font from which they can differentiate good and bad behaviors and 2] having established that, it provides the faithful with a path [on this side of the grave] to immortality and salvation [on the other side of it].

I think this is getting in the direction of what can be avoided. There really is no need to get into what you think their motivations are. My sense is you have in the past discussed this in ways that involved more speculation and assumptions than you realize and that this has included going personal and speculating about the internal states of other individuals. So if we were to apply my comment to that, I think it's a poor choice. It splays the discussion apart from all the other problems that arise with ad homs.

i didn't write what you quoted above thinking of you or the thread in general. As I said, it was a conclusion related to Prismatic, though I certainly have seen it in many cases. (and not just around the God debate. IOW people are often parsimonious about other people's beliefs, and judge others for the lack of parsimoniousness, but not their own)

And that it is largely these parts the theists are least likely to explore in terms of what either can or cannot be known philosophically.

[/quote]I think that's a pretty univeral human trait. People don't like to look at things that might lead to cognitive dissonence. But sure, many theists, likely most seem to avoid that stuff and certainly when discussing such issues with non-theists. Everyone seems to put on a game face.

So it depends on what your goal is. If you want to have triggered discussions that are a bit all over the place, well, then add in your speculations about what theists are like in their minds in general, emotionally and cognitively. And do this on a personal level with individual theists. Tell them what they are thinking and why - add in your provisos 'it seems' 'I could be wrong' for consistancy - and enjoy the mess that follows.

If you want to actually look together at their epistemology, I think it would be better to avoid that stuff. I am not especially optimistic about even this latter discussion,b ut I think it has a much better chance of staying on the topic and leaving room for both sides to really look at what they are doing and why.

Edit* And then being epistemologically parsimonius would be more consistant. Once one side is claiming X is subjective or prove to me it is not AND then making what seem like subjective claims, it is pretty much demanding a free for all. If that is the goal, then hypocrisy is a good option. If not, not.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: The tittle of the thread is 'on discussing god and religion'. If we look at this topic in the OP my point could be seen as a guideline for the discussion. If you feel that Zinnat or anyone else is making assumptions or speculating wildly or confusing subjective experiences with objective knowledge or whatever, it would be good

in discussions of god and religion

to be parsimonious about making assumptions (including those about him) or speculating wildly or confusing subjective experience with objective knowledge.

This thread revolves around the discussions of God and religion that Zinnatt and I were having on another thread. It was understood [at least by me] that Z would finally get around to connecting the dots between his intellectual assessment of both, as that actually impacted the behaviors that he chose on this side of the grave --- so as to be in sync with that which he imagined his fate to be on the other side of it. It's about bringing these speculations down to earth.

Sure, different people might understand that in different ways. So all we can do here is to sustain an exchange that makes the attempt to bridge the gap. I just want the attempt itself to be situated out in the world as most of us actually experience it when the discussion does get around to God and religion. How they have come to matter or not matter when those behaviors that precipitate consequences for oneself and for others are in full view.

This part:

My point would be that most theists espouse one or another God because 1] it provides them with a transcending font from which they can differentiate good and bad behaviors and 2] having established that, it provides the faithful with a path [on this side of the grave] to immortality and salvation [on the other side of it].

To which you respond...

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I think this is getting in the direction of what can be avoided. There really is no need to get into what you think their motivations are. My sense is you have in the past discussed this in ways that involved more speculation and assumptions than you realize and that this has included going personal and speculating about the internal states of other individuals. So if we were to apply my comment to that, I think it's a poor choice. It splays the discussion apart from all the other problems that arise with ad homs.

i didn't write what you quoted above thinking of you or the thread in general. As I said, it was a conclusion related to Prismatic, though I certainly have seen it in many cases. (and not just around the God debate. IOW people are often parsimonious about other people's beliefs, and judge others for the lack of parsimoniousness, but not their own)

I have no clear idea at all as how this is actually related to the point I raise. It's all too general. It may be entirely pertinent to the things that I am after on this thread, but nothing really sinks in. I have no idea what "on earth" you are getting at. I need a more concrete set of circumstances from which to flesh out what I construe to be just another general description "assessment".

My "goal" here is to discuss God and religion as though I have had an encounter with someone in which our views about them precipitate one or another level of disagreement or conflict. With Zinnatt it began with how we think about them differently here in a philosophy venue. But how might that translate into a more substantive discussion if those ideas were to come into contact "out in the world" engendering behaviors which we viewed with disfavor.

If epistemology is going to enter into this discussion, it must revolve around [or get around to] the chosen behaviors themselves.

What can we know about that which motivated us to choose them? How is an understanding of that motivation within reach of the tools employed by philosophers? And how much is instead basically out of reach of them?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

iambiguous wrote:My point would be that most theists espouse one or another God because 1] it provides them with a transcending font from which they can differentiate good and bad behaviors and 2] having established that, it provides the faithful with a path [on this side of the grave] to immortality and salvation [on the other side of it].

To which you respond...

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I think this is getting in the direction of what can be avoided. There really is no need to get into what you think their motivations are. My sense is you have in the past discussed this in ways that involved more speculation and assumptions than you realize and that this has included going personal and speculating about the internal states of other individuals. So if we were to apply my comment to that, I think it's a poor choice. It splays the discussion apart from all the other problems that arise with ad homs.

i didn't write what you quoted above thinking of you or the thread in general. As I said, it was a conclusion related to Prismatic, though I certainly have seen it in many cases. (and not just around the God debate. IOW people are often parsimonious about other people's beliefs, and judge others for the lack of parsimoniousness, but not their own)

I have no clear idea at all as how this is actually related to the point I raise. It's all too general.

Well, the OP is very general. Read it again. The title of the thread is very general. The post I was responding to was very general. (I made that general suggestion as part of responding to your post about Prismatic) I made a general suggestion about what it might be a good idea NOT to do in discussions with theists, as opposed to what I saw Prismatic doing. And then it applied also to your quote. The quote of yours above - which is a concrete specific set of words in a specific situation between specific people - is heading in the direction of doing that.

I think that will muddle up discussions. Unless the goal is to have muddled up discussions, I would avoid telling people why they do what they do and/or telling them what is really or 'really' going on in them.

Yes, this is a general suggestion in response to you asking me how a statement I made relates to the OP. The OP and the title of the thread are extremely general. I then used my quote to make a general suggestion about discussions of god and religion. In fact the quote was, as stated earlier, in reaction to your post about Prismatics posts. And note: your post in response to Prismatic is very general and does not get into specifics. Which is fine.

I am suggesting a best practice, a heuristic: of course that's going to be general.

Here's a specific kind of use of it.

Prismatic tells, for example, a theist or readers in general that theists believe in God to assuage their fear of death. Period.

That is him, acting in the world, telling theists what their real motivations and justifications for a belief are. I think once you engage in mind reading like this, you are likely to not end up with focused discussions where people respond to specific points. IOW it will lead to discussions with counter-ad homs, counter mind-reading, and further, since it is, iteself, I think, based on speculative not well grounded epistemology, it is hypocritical - since he is critical of religious people's epistemology. Hypocrisy, I think, leads to confused and disorganized discussions.

My suggestion is that unless this is the goal, one should avoid mind reading and telling people what their motives are.

This is a thread about how to discuss god and religion, presumably in part between believers and non-believers. Both sides might find it better to refrain from mind reading.

That's it. A simple point. One concrete example of what I think one should avoid has now been presented. I used an example where it was clearer than the quote of yours at the beginning of the thread.

A general response to a very general set of posts.

That suggestion is: avoid telling others what you think is the why they do things, if you want to engage in some kind of exploratory information gathering process with them. If you want to clarify things collaboratively.

If one wants stirred up emotions and a lack of focus, then mind reading would then be a good heuristic, I would think.

Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Thu May 16, 2019 7:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

My favorite philosopher is Spinoza, and His view of God I interpreted as a grand awareness, a higher serenity of peace, a throne of council to honor the way of nature, and to tap into the deepest power in the universe, realizing the infinitude of all things.

Can a religious perspective get any fluffier than this? The whole point seems aimed at getting as far removed as possible from the actual nitty gritty reality of human interactions as most of us know them to be. Instead, you create "in your head" this hopelessly vague and vacuous "spiritual" reality you can use as a counterweight to anything that might happen to come along and spoil your day.

Really, how on earth is this "grand awareness" applicable to a nature that is a veritable slaughterhouse of predator and prey? How does one square a "higher serenity of peace" with a natural order that is bursting at seams with all manner of catastophic calamities -- from earthquakes and volcanoes to great floods and devastating droughts.

Not to mention such things as "extinction events".

The "deepest power of the universe"? And what might that be? It seems no more able to be examined and explained realistically than the "infinitude of all things." Instead, it seems more in the way of being able to say it and think it and feel it in your "heart and soul".

I just don't get it. Sure, the idea of a particular denominational God existing, then creating the universe and then the human race at least allows one to focus in on something. But God as the “the sum of the natural and physical laws"?

How does one really connect the dots here between an entity of this sort and the choices that one makes from day to day to day. And in a world that is often bursting at the seams with all manner of pain and suffering.

It all just seems to be a flotation device, a psychological balm able to offer up at least something to counter all the horrors built right into the human condition.

Last edited by iambiguous on Wed May 15, 2019 5:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

At least that’s a correct way of putting how/what it is.. Spinozism, singular at the confinement of a point but not confined in its ability to create multiple points (reactions).

My favorite philosopher is Spinoza, and His view of God I interpreted as a grand awareness, a higher serenity of peace, a throne of council to honor the way of nature, and to tap into the deepest power in the universe, realizing the infinitude of all things. The perceptible glory we capture through reason, through a humble flourishing of love and care guides us on the oldest, most experienced road to the triumph of mind. By being more locked into our own mental chambers, stationed away from the passions, or the effects, we begin to understand why we do things, and this unlocking of the causes that pull us into momentum makes us more free, because we become the initiators of change, being determined into action by our own wills rather than by external stimuli.

God here is so much of a tidal way, a swirl of polarities inscribing the most decorated powers into our human matrix, and by being guided by such a masterful power of force, we are liberated.

iambiguous wrote:My favorite philosopher is Spinoza, and His view of God I interpreted as a grand awareness, a higher serenity of peace, a throne of council to honor the way of nature, and to tap into the deepest power in the universe, realizing the infinitude of all things.

Can a religious perspective get any fluffier than this? The whole point seems aimed at getting as far removed as possible from the actual nitty gritty reality of human interactions as most of us know them to be. Instead, you create "in your head" this hopelessly vague and vacuous "spititual" reality you can use as a counterweight to anything that might happen to come along and spoil your day.

The extreme dangers of physical existence, not necessarily higher metaphysical/spiritual awareness, but real life may be draining and damaging, but (assuming all of our basic bodily needs are met), we can reach a purely transcendental state of wholeness and warmth/love, bubbling hearts if we treasure this precious opportunity we have in life to shine our talents and secure wisdom for the future.

Really, how on earth is this "grand awareness" applicable to a nature that is a veritable slaughterhouse of predator and prey? How does one square a "higher serenity of peace" with a natural order that is bursting at seams with all manner of catastophic calamities -- from earthquakes and volcanoes to great floods and devastating droughts.

Not to mention such things as "extinction events".

The power of nature may be absolutely outrageously vivid, even violent in magnitude and display, but, from our secure scientific vantage points, such phenomena may be a source of fascination and awe, kind of like how swords became lightsabers for hollywood entertainment and geeky play. And, regarding the pain of being eaten, it's the infinitude of forms in nature that represent the full splendor and spectrum of the divine intellect. Still, there's a better way, and when we rise up to supreme levels (which is already promised to us in the holy books, God protecting our destiny), we can remove the hurt and death from existence.

The "deepest power of the universe"? And what might that be? It seems no more able to be examined and explained realistically than the "infinitude of all things." Instead, it seems more in the way of being able to say it and think it and feel it in your "heart and soul".

This divine, omnipotent, megagalactic power is God - He is real, watches over us, supervises us, and ensures for our highest fate. If we tap into the will of God, imagination (the desired part) becomes at least somewhat real (and perhaps in the future very real). How do we know that God is real? Because of chance/destiny synchronicities and prayers being answered, even feeling in your heart the full embrace of spiritual ecstasy. The existence itself may presently be evil though, but that can be overturned centuries down the road.

I just don't get it. Sure, the idea of a particular denominational God existing, then creating the universe and then the human race at least allows one to focus in on something. But God as the “the sum of the natural and physical laws"?

The cosmic completeness that can arise in our sanctuaries of soul from the divine outpouring of nature gives effect to passions of lucidity and clarity, finding that center of council that blesses us with the fanciest garb, or maybe if mind was strong enough, then it's just as we will it, and no law, natural or supernatural will hold us back.

How does one really connect the dots here between an entity of this sort and the choices that one makes from day to day to day. And in a world that is often bursting at the seams with all manner of pain and suffering.

Parts of life are perfect, and parts of it are not, but it's the growing phase, and the key is this - if we just made everything perfectly suddenly, the invisible code of liberty/free will would weaken, because if there was ever a chance that the devil could overcome us, that triumph over his matrix is victory and freedom every day. Would you ask for it to happen that way again? No, never - hurting people is a sin. But it won't happen again, so we may as well dig deeper for bigger rewards through more pain.

It all just seems to be a flotation device, a psychological balm able to offer up at least something to counter all the horrors built right into the human condition.

Yes, it's escapism, but if we're pure of constitution and valor/vitality enough/sufficiently, then we can throw down those arrows and chains of miserable, determined/devil-controlled existence, and strike our conquest celebrations enough to take over the universe. And even though I don't do anything wrong, I'm dark sided, because sometimes I contemplate the poisonous perspective to try to be more unique, or grab for myself huge labyrinths of control grounds to feel the force energy of the eons spent dreaming of the highest utopia.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Well, the OP is very general. Read it again. The title of the thread is very general.

With regard to discussions of God and religion, the OP revolves around this assumption:

There are two ways in which we can come to a point of view pertaining to value judgments. On the one hand, we can spend hours and hours and hours actually thinking about the pros and the cons of the behaviors we derive from our particular value judgments. We can then try to have as many different experiences as possible relating to those behaviors ; and we can discuss them with as many different people as possible in order to get diverse points of view; and we can try to acquire as much knowledge and information about these behaviors/value judgments in order to be fully informed on it.

On the other hand, based on my own experience, most folks don't do this it all. Instead, they live in a particular time and place, acquire a particular set of experiences, accumulate a particular set of relationships and acquire particular sources of knowledge and information -- which then comes [rather fortuitously] over the years to predispose them to particular subjective points of view that might well have changed over and again throughout the years. And, indeed, may well change many times more.

In other words, an open invitation to those who choose particular behaviors on this side of the grave, to discuss how and why their choices are related to that which they construe their fate to be [or want their fate to be] on the other side of the grave.

Instead, as always with you of late, this is all about me. Accusations of this sort:

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ...avoid telling others what you think is the why they do things, if you want to engage in some kind of exploratory information gathering process with them. If you want to clarify things collaboratively.

If one wants stirred up emotions and a lack of focus, then mind reading would then be a good heuristic, I would think.

What on earth does this have to do with the behaviors that you choose on this side of the grave as that relates to your thinking about God and religion as that relates to your imagined fate after you tumble over into the abyss that may or may not be oblivion?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Exuberant Teleportation wrote: My favorite philosopher is Spinoza, and His view of God I interpreted as a grand awareness, a higher serenity of peace, a throne of council to honor the way of nature, and to tap into the deepest power in the universe, realizing the infinitude of all things.

Can a religious perspective get any fluffier than this? The whole point seems aimed at getting as far removed as possible from the actual nitty gritty reality of human interactions as most of us know them to be. Instead, you create "in your head" this hopelessly vague and vacuous "spititual" reality you can use as a counterweight to anything that might happen to come along and spoil your day.

Exuberant Teleportation wrote: The extreme dangers of physical existence, not necessarily higher metaphysical/spiritual awareness, but real life may be draining and damaging, but (assuming all of our basic bodily needs are met), we can reach a purely transcendental state of wholeness and warmth/love, bubbling hearts if we treasure this precious opportunity we have in life to shine our talents and secure wisdom for the future.

Okay, but this sort of thinking and feeling is deemed no less "fluffy" to me.

That you are in fact able to achieve this frame of mind works for you in that it allows you to sustain a level of equillibrium and equanimity that most of us are unable to attain. Let alone to sustain. But I am more interested in understanding how this frame of mind is applicable to your interactions with others. In particular interactions that come into conflict with those who have a very different understanding of that which is deemed to be wise for the future.

Really, how on earth is this "grand awareness" applicable to a nature that is a veritable slaughterhouse of predator and prey? How does one square a "higher serenity of peace" with a natural order that is bursting at seams with all manner of catastophic calamities -- from earthquakes and volcanoes to great floods and devastating droughts.

Not to mention such things as "extinction events".

Exuberant Teleportation wrote: The power of nature may be absolutely outrageously vivid, even violent in magnitude and display, but, from our secure scientific vantage points, such phenomena may be a source of fascination and awe, kind of like how swords became lightsabers for hollywood entertainment and geeky play. And, regarding the pain of being eaten, it's the infinitude of forms in nature that represent the full splendor and spectrum of the divine intellect. Still, there's a better way, and when we rise up to supreme levels (which is already promised to us in the holy books, God protecting our destiny), we can remove the hurt and death from existence.

So, the slaughterhouse that is nature and hellholes that natural disasters can become in inflicting terrible pain and suffering on mere mortals from the cradle to the grave...this is just something that you are able to subsume in the manner in which you have thought yourself into believing what you do. Or would you explain it differently?

On the other hand, when push comes to shove, you insist that your own rendition of God is there to protect your destiny. But what of the hundreds and hundreds of denominational narratives out there that have very different assumptions about God? Are they all just subsumed ecumenically in your own set of assumptions?

I call them assumptions only until you are able to demonstrate to us that what you believe is true here "in your head" is in fact true for all of us.

Instead, in my view, you merely assert things like this:

Exuberant Teleportation wrote: This divine, omnipotent, megagalactic power is God - He is real, watches over us, supervises us, and ensures for our highest fate. If we tap into the will of God, imagination (the desired part) becomes at least somewhat real (and perhaps in the future very real). How do we know that God is real? Because of chance/destiny synchronicities and prayers being answered, even feeling in your heart the full embrace of spiritual ecstasy. The existence itself may presently be evil though, but that can be overturned centuries down the road.

And this must be true because the whole point of believing it is true is that it sustains the emotional and psychological comfort and consolation that such a belief engenders.

I just don't get it. Sure, the idea of a particular denominational God existing, then creating the universe and then the human race at least allows one to focus in on something. But God as the “the sum of the natural and physical laws"?

Exuberant Teleportation wrote: The cosmic completeness that can arise in our sanctuaries of soul from the divine outpouring of nature gives effect to passions of lucidity and clarity, finding that center of council that blesses us with the fanciest garb, or maybe if mind was strong enough, then it's just as we will it, and no law, natural or supernatural will hold us back.

In my own opinion, more of the same. The point seems not to broach, describe and then to demonstrate that what you believe is true, but to note that the fact that you believe it is true is what allows you to nestle down in it triumphantly. After all, any number of others can profess to have achieved the same sort of "lucidity" with entirely different renditions of God and religion.

It just so happens that yours and only yours is the one and the only true calling.

How does one really connect the dots here between an entity of this sort and the choices that one makes from day to day to day. And in a world that is often bursting at the seams with all manner of pain and suffering.

Exuberant Teleportation wrote: Parts of life are perfect, and parts of it are not, but it's the growing phase, and the key is this - if we just made everything perfectly suddenly, the invisible code of liberty/free will would weaken, because if there was ever a chance that the devil could overcome us, that triumph over his matrix is victory and freedom every day. Would you ask for it to happen that way again? No, never - hurting people is a sin. But it won't happen again, so we may as well dig deeper for bigger rewards through more pain.

Ever and always keeping it vague. That, in my view, is the whole point of general descriptions like this. Whereas I created this thread in order to go in the opposite direction:

When you are out and about interacting with others, what moitivates you to choose particular behaviors...as this relates to the assumptions you make about God and religion as this relates to that which you construe your fate to be on the other side of the grave?

Are you willing to bring the rhetoric down to the reality of defending your own value judgments on this side of the grave?

Instead, from my own perspective, transcendental thinking of this sort is more in sync with this:

It all just seems to be a flotation device, a psychological balm able to offer up at least something to counter all the horrors built right into the human condition.

Exuberant Teleportation wrote: Yes, it's escapism, but if we're pure of constitution and valor/vitality enough/sufficiently, then we can throw down those arrows and chains of miserable, determined/devil-controlled existence, and strike our conquest celebrations enough to take over the universe.

Let's focus in on a context in which men and women, in thinking about God and religion, might experience this sort of thing.

When, more specifically, would escapism give way to all those other things? Can you cite examples from your own life?

Exuberant Teleportation wrote: And even though I don't do anything wrong, I'm dark sided, because sometimes I contemplate the poisonous perspective to try to be more unique, or grab for myself huge labyrinths of control grounds to feel the force energy of the eons spent dreaming of the highest utopia.

Again, what would you deem to be wrong behavior on this side of the grave? And suppose others with conflicting views of God and religion insisted that this behavior was actually right instead. Regarding an issue like abortion. Which has been in the news here of late in America.

In detail, note your own chosen behaviors regarding an issue like this [on this side of the grave] and how and why you chose it given your assumptions regarding your fate on the other side of the grave.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

iambiguous wrote:Okay, but this sort of thinking and feeling is deemed no less "fluffy" to me.

That you are in fact able to achieve this frame of mind works for you in that it allows you to sustain a level of equillibrium and equanimity that most of us are unable to attain. Let alone to sustain. But I am more interested in understanding how this frame of mind is applicable to your interactions with others. In particular interactions that come into conflict with those who have a very different understanding of that which is deemed to be wise for the future.

Some of our experiences are so golden, so ecstatic, that, even when they're over, we remember them, and to feel those sensations again inspires us to reach that state whenever we can. I've been to the Natural History Museum at the Smithsonian in Washington DC, and getting a full scale reconstruction of a whole T-Rex emblazoned into my mind was louder than any thunder crackle I've ever been obliterated by. So sharing some of that exuberance that I felt beholding rare sights like that is a great endeavor.

So, the slaughterhouse that is nature and hellholes that natural disasters can become in inflicting terrible pain and suffering on mere mortals from the cradle to the grave...this is just something that you are able to subsume in the manner in which you have thought yourself into believing what you do. Or would you explain it differently?

On the other hand, when push comes to shove, you insist that your own rendition of God is there to protect your destiny. But what of the hundreds and hundreds of denominational narratives out there that have very different assumptions about God? Are they all just subsumed ecumenically in your own set of assumptions?

I call them assumptions only until you are able to demonstrate to us that what you believe is true here "in your head" is in fact true for all of us.

We are a society, and programming the right instructions into the game to flow the right way, towards our highest fate, if you really want my own, old, wrinkled, decrepit opinion is that a few of us do tap into the fullest power/realization of God with full Free Will, but the numbers of us who do that are few (and I do consider myself 1 of those select people), and when you involve the global mass consciousness, things are more satanically dominated by his ill will and predictive powers for our future than ever! More people = less free will; 1-2 or a few smart people = extreme free will (the best possible results).

And this must be true because the whole point of believing it is true is that it sustains the emotional and psychological comfort and consolation that such a belief engenders.

There's a beauty to subjectivity if you're so removed from the real world, that you're able to shatter and annihilate the old laws to replace them with something exquisite. I used to even believe in Galactic Super Civilizations, and that inspired a lot of my cosmic writings in my notebooks to skyrocket through the roof in quality. With strong enough fantasy (subjectivity), it threatens to break the box and make at least a little but more real those radical daydreams.

In my own opinion, more of the same. The point seems not to broach, describe and then to demonstrate that what you believe is true, but to note that the fact that you believe it is true is what allows you to nestle down in it triumphantly. After all, any number of others can profess to have achieved the same sort of "lucidity" with entirely different renditions of God and religion.

It just so happens that yours and only yours is the one and the only true calling.

I spent very long periods of time in my notebooks collecting from many sources. Some I rated more highly than others. And most highly, I esteemed Einstein, because the firecrackers that he had exploding in his mind on the infinitude, mystery, entanglement, and rapture of learning was so rare, that it may have only been duplicated a handful of times in others (less known) after his death. To be totally immersed in the enigmas of the far-out/extreme can voyage us to somewhere far more spectacular than we might initially envision.

Ever and always keeping it vague. That, in my view, is the whole point of general descriptions like this. Whereas I created this thread in order to go in the opposite direction:

When you are out and about interacting with others, what moitivates you to choose particular behaviors...as this relates to the assumptions you make about God and religion as this relates to that which you construe your fate to be on the other side of the grave?

Are you willing to bring the rhetoric down to the reality of defending your own value judgments on this side of the grave?

Instead, from my own perspective, transcendental thinking of this sort is more in sync with this:

My motivations are wisdom seeking (why else would I be at a philosophy forum), but also to reach a higher fate than ordinary, because life is filled with so many challenges, that if we can blast beyond the point of return, and come back to earth with a repair plan, the impossibilities of sci-fi could reinvent tomorrow, so to be part of that transition would be groundbreaking.

Let's focus in on a context in which men and women, in thinking about God and religion, might experience this sort of thing.

When, more specifically, would escapism give way to all those other things? Can you cite examples from your own life?

Escapism removes the pessimism of facts, and allows for intriguing interests to influence the course of the future. Pokemon inspired me to publish (a few) of my cherished solitary reflections into a mini story/archetype format here on the forum, and voyaging through all of those would be emperors of Force Powers and Feats sets in motion my ambitions for being the Star Forge Lugia and the favorite to win the Big Omniversal Tournament in the galaxy, whatever type of fighting that may be (perhaps Pokemon cards?). I set my arrow to the highest sun/vantage-point of our ever growing future in space.

Again, what would you deem to be wrong behavior on this side of the grave? And suppose others with conflicting views of God and religion insisted that this behavior was actually right instead. Regarding an issue like abortion. Which has been in the news here of late in America.

In detail, note your own chosen behaviors regarding an issue like this [on this side of the grave] and how and why you chose it given your assumptions regarding your fate on the other side of the grave.

I never think that women should give natural births - it hurts them too badly. And the kid's life might suck too. 1 funny twist I thought of is to have the Female optional player in Pokemon Crystal have Bunny/Pikachu Ears sticking out of Her vagina, and then you just pull the Bunny out, and she goes, "Wah, Wah"!! But I still think that women who sin and give birth are just wimps, because men like Kobe Bryant, frankly, endure more pain.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Well, the OP is very general. Read it again. The title of the thread is very general.

With regard to discussions of God and religion, the OP revolves around this assumption:

There are two ways in which we can come to a point of view pertaining to value judgments. On the one hand, we can spend hours and hours and hours actually thinking about the pros and the cons of the behaviors we derive from our particular value judgments. We can then try to have as many different experiences as possible relating to those behaviors ; and we can discuss them with as many different people as possible in order to get diverse points of view; and we can try to acquire as much knowledge and information about these behaviors/value judgments in order to be fully informed on it.

On the other hand, based on my own experience, most folks don't do this it all. Instead, they live in a particular time and place, acquire a particular set of experiences, accumulate a particular set of relationships and acquire particular sources of knowledge and information -- which then comes [rather fortuitously] over the years to predispose them to particular subjective points of view that might well have changed over and again throughout the years. And, indeed, may well change many times more.

In other words, an open invitation to those who choose particular behaviors on this side of the grave, to discuss how and why their choices are related to that which they construe their fate to be [or want their fate to be] on the other side of the grave.

Instead, as always with you of late, this is all about me. Accusations of this sort:

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ...avoid telling others what you think is the why they do things, if you want to engage in some kind of exploratory information gathering process with them. If you want to clarify things collaboratively.

If one wants stirred up emotions and a lack of focus, then mind reading would then be a good heuristic, I would think.

What on earth does this have to do with the behaviors that you choose on this side of the grave as that relates to your thinking about God and religion as that relates to your imagined fate after you tumble over into the abyss that may or may not be oblivion?

You wrote about Prismatic. I responded to that post, wrote nothing about you there. I then added a post when something else occurred to me. You asked what it had to do with the OP. I said it had to do with our posts about Prismatic and what he said.

But since you asked me what it had to do with the OP, I explained what I thought it had to do with the OP.

There is nothing in the OP about the abyss of death. The title of the thread is 'On discussing God and Religion-' The OP includes your suggestion about how one could better discuss these kinds of issues. My criticism of Prismatic's approach had to do with what I wrote about mind reading. My post was relevent to the Subject of the thread, to Prismatic's post, to your response to my response to his post, and included my response to how that quote might relate to the OP.

Now instead of acknowledging any of that, you change what the OP subject matter is, do not respond to my post about Prismatics approach, which was in agreement with you, but extending the critique, nor do you respond to what was a general suggestion for what would be good to avoid when discussing God and religion. You say my post is 'general' as a criticism. I point out why it needs to be this way given my intentions and further what I was responding to. No response. Absences. No concessions. No direct responses. No response even to the post agreeing with you.

Nice job.

But fine now the thread is only for discussions of one's attitudes about the abyss of death. Good to know. I was mislead by your post earlier on this page related to Prismatics postions and approach and then the OP and then your question, but now I know. I am sure someone will engage with you on that topic.

I am still waiting to find myself freaking out and running away like you claim you drove Uccisore to do and mind read that I will do. Or, well, I'm not.

iambiguous wrote:Okay, but this sort of thinking and feeling is deemed no less "fluffy" to me.

That you are in fact able to achieve this frame of mind works for you in that it allows you to sustain a level of equillibrium and equanimity that most of us are unable to attain. Let alone to sustain. But I am more interested in understanding how this frame of mind is applicable to your interactions with others. In particular interactions that come into conflict with those who have a very different understanding of that which is deemed to be wise for the future.

Some of our experiences are so golden, so ecstatic, that, even when they're over, we remember them, and to feel those sensations again inspires us to reach that state whenever we can. I've been to the Natural History Museum at the Smithsonian in Washington DC, and getting a full scale reconstruction of a whole T-Rex emblazoned into my mind was louder than any thunder crackle I've ever been obliterated by. So sharing some of that exuberance that I felt beholding rare sights like that is a great endeavor.

We are clearly in two different discussions here. I want you to take your views on God and religion and note how they impact your actual interactions with others such that the dots are connected between your value judgments on this side of grave, the behaviors you choose as a result of them and the manner which your surmise this will impact your own particular "I" on the other side of the grave.

Instead, you persist in taking us up into the fluffy clouds of psychologism. Or, rather, so it seems to me. A T-Rex at the Smithsonian?! What does this have to do with the request that I made?

So, the slaughterhouse that is nature and hellholes that natural disasters can become in inflicting terrible pain and suffering on mere mortals from the cradle to the grave...this is just something that you are able to subsume in the manner in which you have thought yourself into believing what you do. Or would you explain it differently?

On the other hand, when push comes to shove, you insist that your own rendition of God is there to protect your destiny. But what of the hundreds and hundreds of denominational narratives out there that have very different assumptions about God? Are they all just subsumed ecumenically in your own set of assumptions?

I call them assumptions only until you are able to demonstrate to us that what you believe is true here "in your head" is in fact true for all of us.

Exuberant Teleportation wrote: We are a society, and programming the right instructions into the game to flow the right way, towards our highest fate, if you really want my own, old, wrinkled, decrepit opinion is that a few of us do tap into the fullest power/realization of God with full Free Will, but the numbers of us who do that are few (and I do consider myself 1 of those select people), and when you involve the global mass consciousness, things are more satanically dominated by his ill will and predictive powers for our future than ever! More people = less free will; 1-2 or a few smart people = extreme free will (the best possible results).

As well, from my frame of mind, just another abstract/abstruse "general description" of how you "feel" about all of this. In no way does it address the points that I make. Why? Because [in my view] the whole point of saying and believing fuzzy, featherty things like this is to sustain how it makes you feel. Nestled snugly in the comfort and the consolation of having something like this to fall back on in a world bursting at the seams with all manner of human pain and suffering.

Again:

I created this thread in order to go in the opposite direction:

When you are out and about interacting with others, what moitivates you to choose particular behaviors...as this relates to the assumptions you make about God and religion as this relates to that which you construe your fate to be on the other side of the grave?

Are you willing to bring the rhetoric down to the reality of defending your own value judgments on this side of the grave?

Exuberant Teleportation wrote: My motivations are wisdom seeking (why else would I be at a philosophy forum), but also to reach a higher fate than ordinary, because life is filled with so many challenges, that if we can blast beyond the point of return, and come back to earth with a repair plan, the impossibilities of sci-fi could reinvent tomorrow, so to be part of that transition would be groundbreaking.

Clearly you are not. This is the sort of airy rhetoric -- "language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in meaningful content" -- that we get from any number of New Age mystic sorts.

So, if you are not willing to contribute to the thread in the spirit of the OP, you can surely continue to post here, but I will not be inclined to read any of what you do post.

Convince me then that you are willing to go in that direction.

In other words...

Again, what would you deem to be wrong behavior on this side of the grave? And suppose others with conflicting views of God and religion insisted that this behavior was actually right instead. Regarding an issue like abortion. Which has been in the news here of late in America.

In detail, note your own chosen behaviors regarding an issue like this [on this side of the grave] and how and why you chose it given your assumptions regarding your fate on the other side of the grave.

To which you post:

Exuberant Teleportation wrote: I never think that women should give natural births - it hurts them too badly. And the kid's life might suck too. 1 funny twist I thought of is to have the Female optional player in Pokemon Crystal have Bunny/Pikachu Ears sticking out of Her vagina, and then you just pull the Bunny out, and she goes, "Wah, Wah"!! But I still think that women who sin and give birth are just wimps, because men like Kobe Bryant, frankly, endure more pain.

Sorry, but this is not the sort of thing I am able to take seriously.

And, sure, that may well reflect my own failing here.

But there it is.

Last edited by iambiguous on Mon May 20, 2019 3:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Well, the OP is very general. Read it again. The title of the thread is very general.

With regard to discussions of God and religion, the OP revolves around this assumption:

There are two ways in which we can come to a point of view pertaining to value judgments. On the one hand, we can spend hours and hours and hours actually thinking about the pros and the cons of the behaviors we derive from our particular value judgments. We can then try to have as many different experiences as possible relating to those behaviors ; and we can discuss them with as many different people as possible in order to get diverse points of view; and we can try to acquire as much knowledge and information about these behaviors/value judgments in order to be fully informed on it.

On the other hand, based on my own experience, most folks don't do this it all. Instead, they live in a particular time and place, acquire a particular set of experiences, accumulate a particular set of relationships and acquire particular sources of knowledge and information -- which then comes [rather fortuitously] over the years to predispose them to particular subjective points of view that might well have changed over and again throughout the years. And, indeed, may well change many times more.

In other words, an open invitation to those who choose particular behaviors on this side of the grave, to discuss how and why their choices are related to that which they construe their fate to be [or want their fate to be] on the other side of the grave.

Instead, as always with you of late, this is all about me. Accusations of this sort:

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ...avoid telling others what you think is the why they do things, if you want to engage in some kind of exploratory information gathering process with them. If you want to clarify things collaboratively.

If one wants stirred up emotions and a lack of focus, then mind reading would then be a good heuristic, I would think.

What on earth does this have to do with the behaviors that you choose on this side of the grave as that relates to your thinking about God and religion as that relates to your imagined fate after you tumble over into the abyss that may or may not be oblivion?

You wrote about Prismatic. I responded to that post, wrote nothing about you there. I then added a post when something else occurred to me. You asked what it had to do with the OP. I said it had to do with our posts about Prismatic and what he said.

But since you asked me what it had to do with the OP, I explained what I thought it had to do with the OP.

There is nothing in the OP about the abyss of death. The title of the thread is 'On discussing God and Religion-' The OP includes your suggestion about how one could better discuss these kinds of issues. My criticism of Prismatic's approach had to do with what I wrote about mind reading. My post was relevent to the Subject of the thread, to Prismatic's post, to your response to my response to his post, and included my response to how that quote might relate to the OP.

Now instead of acknowledging any of that, you change what the OP subject matter is, do not respond to my post about Prismatics approach, which was in agreement with you, but extending the critique, nor do you respond to what was a general suggestion for what would be good to avoid when discussing God and religion. You say my post is 'general' as a criticism. I point out why it needs to be this way given my intentions and further what I was responding to. No response. Absences. No concessions. No direct responses. No response even to the post agreeing with you.

Nice job.

But fine now the thread is only for discussions of one's attitudes about the abyss of death. Good to know. I was mislead by your post earlier on this page related to Prismatics postions and approach and then the OP and then your question, but now I know. I am sure someone will engage with you on that topic.

I am still waiting to find myself freaking out and running away like you claim you drove Uccisore to do and mind read that I will do. Or, well, I'm not.

Again, we clearly have a need to go in different directions here. But stuff like this happens [a lot] in venues of this sort.

Let's just leave it at that and move on to others.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Organized Christianity has ripped the title "God's favorite" from the Jews and held it up triumphantly like a championship belt. The Jews didn't get it, and Christianity doesn't get it either: God doesn't have favorites.

First, of course, this presupposes the existence of a God, the God, my God.

But suppose for the sake of argument a God, the God, your God does in fact exist. Would you not want to insist that He favors you and your own flock? And that those who refuse to believe in Him or obey His will are...doomed?

Is it not of vital importance to pin down the existence of the particular flock that God does favor? After all, look what is at stake: immortality, salvation, divine justice.

Of course some will construe themselves as God's "chosen people". That would seem to be the only thing that makes sense.

I've never really understood the argument of those who presume instead the existence one or another ecumenical rendition of God. The catch-all God who doesn't play favorites. After all, if this be the case, how then is one to know which behaviors on this side of the grave most please God? It's like a cafeteria religion. You pick out the behaviors best suited to your own particular wants and needs.

Or it becomes a religion that revolves around the idea [expressed here by, I believe, Ierrellus] that God saves all in the end. But if that is the case then any and all behaviors on this side of the grave are able to be rationalized. If no one is really punished for their sins then morality becomes an entirely subjective cacophony here and now.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

What Is the Relationship Between Religion and Morality?Thomas Swan at the Owlcation website

The Ubiquity of Religious MoralsMany people regard morality as evidence for supernatural intervention in human development. In every major religion, a divine influence is proposed as inspiration for texts that dictate our moral principles. Whether it is the Ten Commandments, the Five Pillars of Islam, the Eight Fold Path, or the Hindu Purusarthas, each decree guarantees a pleasant afterlife because each is endorsed by the god(s).

This thread was created by me basically to address what I have always construed to be the bottom line with regard to God and religion.

We need things. We want things. Sometimes the same things. Sometimes different things. And as soon as these wants and needs become entangled in an actual community of men and women there are going to be conflicts. And where there are conflicts there is a fundamental need for rules of behavior.

Call this morality, call it something else. But who actually decides what these rules are? Maybe those powerful enough to enforce behaviors that sustain their own perceived interests. Maybe that then evolves historically [with the advent of capitalism] into societies more inclined to choose democracy and the rule of law.

But there are always going to be human communities [large and small] where the idea of right makes might prevails. Power is vested in those -- the ecclesiastics, the philosopher-kings -- that embody such knowledge. They can revolve around one or another political ideology or one or another religious denomination.

But the crucial factor that joins them all together is this general belief that, through either God or reason, it is possible to actually differentiate right from wrong behaviors. The one important difference being that with religion this knowledge carries over beyond the grave.

For the secular objectivists, however, you do the right thing because it it is predicated on such things as "scientific socialism", or tradition or even things like ethnicity and race. Or based on one or another Humanistic rendition of political idealism. Something able to meld together "for all practical purposes" individual freedom with social justice.

Adherents of these faiths are unwilling or unable to theorize how right and wrong could have arisen without divine prescription. Nevertheless, it is of paramount importance that we understand the origins of our moral leanings. The justice system is derived from our conclusions on morality, and the actions of those who deviate from moral norms can only be understood once the root of our acceptable behavior is delineated. The dismissive quality of religious thought has prevented this understanding by attributing our good nature to supernatural beings.

Here the argument of the religious folks is that without God, morality can never really be more than a particular consensus derived from a particular community historically and culturally. Why? Because without God, mere mortals lack the omniscience to comprehend beyond doubt which behaviors really are ever and always right or wrong. And they are not omnipresent meaning they cannot know beyond doubt who is being naughty or nice. Finally, they lack the omnipotence that seems to be absolutely imperative if divine justice is to have any substantive [and lasting] meaning at all.

Then the author basically tackles this head on. No God and how on earth can we realistically think about making those crucial distinctions between right and wrong, just and unjust behaviors?

If religion is able to be put aside in any particular community, what then of morality?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

That is the mission of the proletariat: to bring forth supreme dignity from supreme humiliation. Through its suffering and its struggles, it is Christ in human form redeeming the collective sin of alienation. It is, first of all, the multiform bearer of total negation and then the herald of definite affirmation. Albert Camus

The relationship of Marxism and Abrahamism depicts the conversion of spirituality to materialism. An attempt to establish a connection with the real – giving the ideology – the noetic construct – a phenomenal grounding.

The proletariat as the Second Coming of Christ? Only this time the Savior is literally the embodiment of history understood to be unraveling through an objective understanding of "scientific socialism".

In either telling though, the crucial ingredient is the certainty that the faithful are expected [obligated] to cling to. And then to embody. One or another ecclesiastical religion becomes one or another secular ideology.

But, here, however, the whole truth is predicated not on leaps of faith to one or another rendering of The Word, but to a rendering of words themselves reflected in the rational pursuit of that which motivates political economy to evolve organically down through the ages.

It's just that some, after connecting these dots, are compelled to connect this particular "synthesis" to one of their own.

Everything gets reduced down to yet another objective narrative. It might be an entirely different political ideology; or a deontological philosophical contraption; or a dogmatic assessment of nature itself.

But ever and always is the need to anchor "I" to one or another psychological font.

To!Believe!!In!!!Something!!!!

And, really, down through the ages, what hasn't been believed in?

Or, as Cicero once suggested, "There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it."

Or, here, some Kid.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16 makes it clear that only belief in Jesus is necessary to enter heaven/have eternal life, and Jesus himself does not appear to contradict this idea. So if only belief Jesus is necessary where does complying with the terms of the covenant enter the equation? What are these terms you speak of?

Seemingly, the wonderful thing about believing something like this is that it basically makes the rest of the world go away.

You can choose to live by any covenant you wish. You can choose behaviors that are perceived by others to be nothing less than abominations. And yet still be saved as long as a God, the God, your God has access to your soul and knows that you believe in Jesus Christ.

God Himself in other words?

Forget the covenants, forget the rules of behavior, forget figuring out what God expects of you on Judgment Day.

Instead, everything -- everything -- gets reduced down to a single verse in the Bible. Your Bible. Embody that and you are saved.

As for those who grapple mightily with their faith in God. Those who despair as they go in and out of experiences that bring them closer to and then further away from God?

The fools!

Just simply will yourself into believing in Jesus Christ as your savior.

All the rest just follows: Christianity for the masses. Christianity for the flocks of sheep.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

What Is the Relationship Between Religion and Morality?Thomas Swan at the Owlcation website

Conceptual Similarity Between Morals and Deities

The gods that determine our fate beyond death are typically mystical, benign entities with a penchant for influencing the will of humankind. At the dawn of civilization, morality must have appeared in a similar light; a formless force for how to live in peace. In the present, children lack the wisdom to learn morals other than through instruction, leading to a level of reverence for these mystical and highly beneficial laws.

This is clearly a highly idealized description of "moralitity at the dawn of civilization".

In fact, if morality/ethics is understood basically as another way in which intellectuals might describe the rules of behavior in any particular human community, it misses the far more crucial element embedded in the power needed to enforce rules that clearly sustain the interests of some over others. Maybe these methods of enforcement are ascribed to one or another God or not. But surely the "Divine Right of Kings" is not just a coincidence.

With religion however morality always moves beyond this world to the next one. And here things can get tricky. The powers that be may rationalize their dictums through one or another ecclesiatic entity [the Vatican say] but at least some semblance of "justice" needs to be preserved. It then becomes a matter of which particular historical and cultural norms prevail.

And it can always be argued that for God the behaviors that one chooses on this side of the grave pale next to the behaviors one must choose in order to prevail on the other side of it. And this will always go back and forth given the complexities of the "human all too human" world that we live in.

The equally benevolent yet intangible qualities of morality will lead one to ascribe it to that which shares the same character (gods). This conceptual similarity can even prompt the irreligious to associate morality with other forms of direct infusion, whether terrestrial, alien, or supernatural; such is the pervasiveness of religious thought when our minds attempt to comprehend the unknown.

And that's all but inevitable given the gap between what we do know and what is still to be learned. There was once a time when almost nothing was known about the natural world. So everything from great floods and earthquakes to solar eclipses could be wholly attributed to God. Now that won't do. But there are always going to be profound mysteries embedded in "human reality". In fact, the more staggering science makes the Cosmos, the more it seems imperative [to some] that there must be a Creator behind it.

And for self-conscious folks like us, what is still the biggest unknown of all? Death.

And there appears to be no way around that than God. A denominational God in particular. After all, how comforting is it to suppose that after you die you will be at one with the universe as star stuff?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles